Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Abrar Azmi @ Asu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 August, 2015
MCRC-7515-2015
(MOHAMMAD ABRAR AZMI @ ASU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
17-08-2015
Shri Manish Datt Senior counsel with Shri Nishant Datt
counsel for the applicant.
Sushri Divya Kirti Bohre, Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of the applicant Mohd Abrar in crime No. 681 registered by Police Station Madhav Nagar, District Katni, under Sections 376 (2T), 294, 506 and 386 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.
The first application for bail under Section 439 filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2015 passed in miscellaneous criminal case No. 4146 of 2015 with the direction to the respondent/State to obtain the FSL report with regard to the laptop computer seized from possession of the applicant. It may be noted here that the laptop computer wherein indecent photographs and videos of the prosecutrix were said to have been stored, was sent for FSL examination. The respondent/State was directed to obtain the report expeditiously and the applicant was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail after receipt of the FSL report.
The applicant moved this second application for bail on 6.5.2015. On 8.7.2015, on the prayer of learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State, time was granted to procure the FSL report; however, the same has not been received so far.
In aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the state is not serious in procuring the FSL report. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicant has filed photographs and additional documents alleged to contain the exchange of messages between the applicant and the prosecutrix.
On the basis of aforesaid additional documents, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a mature lady about 35 years of age with two teenage sons. It has further been contended that the additional documents filed on behalf of the applicant clearly indicate that she was a consenting party to the entire affair; therefore it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Keeping in view the circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that the respondent/State has not been able to produce the FSL report; the applicant has been in custody since 11.12.2014 and the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
Consequently, the second application for bail filed on behalf of the applicant is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE